Chapter 35 — Capstone proposal
Lesson map
Lesson 35 published. Map, example, EX069.
flowchart TD
N0["Learning outcomes and connection"]
N1["35.1 What a bachelor's capstone is"]
N2["35.2 Choosing a topic"]
N3["35.3 The proposal"]
N4["Chapter synthesis"]
N0 --> N1 --> N2 --> N3 --> N4
N4 --> EX["Worked example"]
EX --> Q["Exercise EX069"]
Logical drawing
flowchart LR
N0["Learning outcomes and connection"]
N1["35.1 What a bachelor's capstone is"]
N2["35.2 Choosing a topic"]
N3["35.3 The proposal"]
N4["Chapter synthesis"]
N0 --> N1 --> N2 --> N3 --> N4 --> Q["EX069"]
[Learning outcomes and connection]
|
v
[35.1 What a bachelor's capstone is]
|
v
[35.2 Choosing a topic]
|
v
[35.3 The proposal]
|
v
[Chapter synthesis]
|
v
[Worked example] --> [Exercise EX069]
Learning outcomes and connection
After this chapter you can (1) choose a capstone topic that is comparative, feasible, ethical and useful; (2) write a proposal with question, context, method, evidence plan, ethics, risks and timeline; (3) define success criteria and deliverables in advance; and (4) obtain the authorisations your project needs. It builds on Chapters 18, 25, 30, 33 and 34 and starts the capstone sequence (Chapters 35–40).
35.1 What a bachelor's capstone is
The capstone demonstrates the course outcome: comparing theories and methods, evaluating evidence and designing a defensible solution for a critical-sector problem. It is neither an engineering build of a complete system (that is the engineering course) nor an original contribution to knowledge (that is the doctorate). A strong bachelor's capstone takes a real decision problem — often from a host organisation (Chapter 36) or a well-documented public topic — compares at least three options or methods with explicit criteria and evidence, and ends with a recommendation and its limits. Typical scale: about 400 hours of work over two semesters, a 10,000–12,000-word thesis and a presentation.
35.2 Choosing a topic
Test each candidate against five questions. Comparative? Are there real alternatives to compare? Feasible? Can you get the evidence in the time — documents, labs, authorised tests, interviews? Ethical and authorised? Does it need ethics approval, host permission, data-protection measures (Chapters 10, 14, 33)? Useful? Would someone act on the answer? Bounded? Can you say what is out of scope? Topics fail most often on feasibility: "evaluate the security of the national grid" is not a capstone; "compare three approaches to vendor remote access for a small distribution operator, using public guidance, a synthetic lab and two practitioner interviews" is.
35.3 The proposal
- Title and question (Chapter 18): population, variables, time frame, answer type.
- Context and motivation: the service, the decision, who needs it.
- Literature and sources: what is known, with a recorded search strategy.
- Options and criteria (Chapter 34): candidate options, constraints, criteria with anchored scales, how weights will be set.
- Method and evidence plan: for each criterion, what evidence and how obtained (documents, lab measurements, authorised tests, interviews).
- Ethics and authorisation: approvals needed, rules of engagement, data handling.
- Risks to the project: access refused, data unavailable, scope creep — and fallbacks (e.g. synthetic data if host data is withdrawn).
- Success criteria and deliverables: what will exist at the end and how it will be judged.
- Timeline: milestones aligned with Chapters 36–40.
35.4 Worked example: a proposal outline (synthetic)
This proposal is synthetic. Question: "For a mid-sized hospital, which of three approaches to managing unsupported clinical devices — accelerated replacement, network isolation with monitoring, or vendor-managed secure gateways — best reduces exposure within a fixed annual budget, judged on consequence reduction, clinical disruption, cost and evidence strength?" Context: CVH (synthetic host) has unsupported imaging and laboratory devices (Lab 2). Sources: public guidance on medical-device and OT security, the NAO WannaCry report, sector performance goals. Method: a synthetic inventory of 120 devices built from published categories; a lab model of exposure under each option; two interviews with clinical engineers (ethics approval requested). Ethics: no real device data; interviews anonymised; host review of outputs. Risks: interviews refused → rely on documents and state the gap. Success criteria: comparison with sensitivity analysis and reversal conditions; recommendation defended at presentation. Timeline: proposal approved week 4; evidence collection weeks 5–14; analysis weeks 15–20; draft thesis week 24; presentation week 28.
35.5 Common errors and limits
- Topics that are descriptive only, with no comparison.
- Evidence plans that assume access you do not yet have.
- No fallback when a host withdraws.
- Success criteria written after the results.
The worked proposal avoids these: it compares three options, requests interviews but has a document fallback, and fixes success criteria before evidence collection.
Each error has a typical symptom. A topic such as "the state of hospital device security" produces a description with nothing to recommend. An evidence plan that assumes host data before the host has agreed collapses in week six. A project without a fallback stalls when an interviewee withdraws. Success criteria written after the results always look met, which is why the worked proposal fixes them in week four.
Exercises — chapter 35
EX069 — Topic triage. Objective: apply the five tests. Inputs: three candidate topics: (a) "Is AI good for security?"; (b) "Compare three methods for detecting false sensor data in a water-tank model, using a synthetic dataset"; (c) "Test the firewall of my local water utility". Steps: apply the five questions to each and choose. Expected evidence: table and choice. Rubric: 3 = (a) not bounded or comparative as stated; (b) feasible, comparative, ethical; (c) unauthorised and unethical — reject; choose (b); 2 = right choice, weak reasoning; 1 = wrong choice; 0 = none.
EX070 — Evidence plan. Objective: connect criteria to evidence. Inputs: the worked proposal outline in this chapter. Steps: for each of the four criteria, state the evidence, its source and one threat to its validity. Expected evidence: four rows. Rubric: 3 = specific evidence (lab exposure model output, interview data on disruption, published costs, quality grading of sources) with matching validity threats; 2 = three; 1 = vague; 0 = none.
Chapter synthesis
A bachelor's capstone answers a real decision problem by comparing options with evidence and ending in a bounded recommendation. A good proposal fixes the question, criteria, evidence plan, ethics, risks, success criteria and timeline before the work begins.
Continue studying — chapter 35 of 40
← Chapter 34 · Course chapter index · Chapter 36 →
Continue to the next authored lesson.